Click here to see "which Sunday" it is (The Proper of Seasons for the Latin Mass).

Monday, June 22, 2009

Didja Ever Notice?I have

Isn't it stange how the vast majority of those that attend that nasty ol' Traditional Latin Mass have a firm grasp on The Real Presence, especially in light that the TLM is "in a language that nobody understands".

Yet, a rather large percentage of those that attend the Mass of Paul VI either don't understand or purposfully choose to deny The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, even though it's broken down in Kindergarden English?

If my church had a TLM, I would certainly attend. However, just because you attend a "Paul VI" Mass (and perhaps all your life) doesn't mean you don't understand or revere the Real Presence. How many centuries passed before Latin became the universal language of the Mass? Were people less reverent or understanding of the Real Presence then than they are now? Somehow, I think not.

Many of us are just as reverent regardless of the language spoken. Jesus is still present in the Ultimate act of Love, whether people realize it or not.

And yes, many Catholics do not understand, or just vaguely, the significance of the Eucharist. But it's not because of the language. Many of us think that returning to a traditional method will solve the problem of lack of reverence. I don't think it will. the real problem, I think, is a matter of training (or lack thereof), and the willingness of those to accept the Church's teaching on the Real Presence. That is the main problem. Until we get people who will train and foster a love for the Eucharist, the problem is not going to go away. Changing the language and other things won't matter in the least.

Hold it. As a Protestant(still), I think what you're noticing is a lack of education within the country. American schools started declining as soon as Latin was taken out of them. And as far as Latin being a language nobody understands, I am doubtful of most people's reading levels in English these days.

Any time I hear a teacher say they don't have to know anything they don't teach, I'm tempted to ask for their driver's license.

Yes, I agreed that many (a large percentage) don't understand - not everyone. I don't need numbers to know that. I think that perhaps the reason for the disparity may be that those who attend the TLM are already predisposed to understanding the Real Presence. However, the Truth is the Truth regardless of the language.

As I asked above, what was "tried and true" before the TLM? Was that Mass a less reverent Mass? Was the understanding of the Real Presence less until the TLM came about? Its what's the heart to begin with.

I also agree wholeheartedly, and said as much above, that Catholics are being dumbed down - and that dumbing down affects the Mass. I do notice. At times it makes me angry, but mostly it saddens me.

However, that being said, the post does seems to contain a little bit of "those of us who attend the TLM are superior to you Paul VI'ers." I'm not offended - 20 years on submarines ground that away, I'm just pointing out what I see. Take it for what its worth. There's no need for us to be disagreeable, my brother, right?

As I asked above, what was "tried and true" before the TLM? Was that Mass a less reverent Mass? Was the understanding of the Real Presence less until the TLM came about? Its what's the heart to begin with.

Prior to the institution of the Latin Mass (The Mass of Gregory the Great), there were many questions that were finally being brought to an end, such as the duality of Christ, questions concerning The Holy Ghost, the Real Presence, etc. As far as the Real Presence (and the question of Transubstantiation) goes, that was precisely one of the reasons why St Gregory instituted a liturgy in a dead language.

As far as the comment "those of us who attend the TLM are superior to you Paul VI'ers." , That simply wasn't my intent. But I have said, and will continue to say that the TLM is FAR superior to the Novus Ordo.

All that aside, I do appriciate your comments. Hell... they keep me on my toes!

Pablo, Do you have any specifics, or just vague generalizations? But if you REALLY want to talk about a lack of charity, just look at the pasting Traditionalism has taken since the introduction of the Mass of Paul VI.

Also, I couldn't help but grin at your statement "The Novus Ordos may not be on the right track, but there seems to be much more Charity among them."

What exactly is your definition of charity? I'm getting the impression you're confusing love for God, with holding hands.

I don't know what drive my mad more. Inane arguments about Charity or extrapulated explanations about when and where language became dead or what.

Here is fact 1: The EF Mass IS more vertical and sacrificial than the OF.

Fact 2: Young men are more oriented to the call to Holy Orders assisting at an EF Mass.

Fact 3: NO ONE ON THIS BLOG has ever said that the OF is not a Mass or that people who attend that Mass are not Catholic. WE HAVE ONLY SAID THAT IT IS BETTER SUITED FOR BUILDING AND NURTURING FAITH AND LESS SUBJECT TO ABUSE.

Fact 4: Charity means sometimes being strait forward with your fellow Catholics. It is funny how people always remember that Jesus stopped the stone throwers yet forget that he then turned to the woman and told her to go and sin no more. The mentality that Charity means that you are always nice and don't offend is exactly what got us where we are today.

If I had a dime for every time I heard someone say "those traddies are so uppity and unwelcoming" I would be a millionaire. If you think the OF gang are so charitable walk up to a group and instruct them on how a woman should NEVER obtain an abortion nor anyone assist in procuring one and watch the "Charity" come your way.

Not to mention the BULLSHIT that Traditional Priests have to put up with, give me a break.

. . . that was precisely one of the reasons why St Gregory instituted a liturgy in a dead language. .

I really don't think Latin was "dead" in 500 AD. Besides, the Gelasian sacramentary preceded the Gregorian sacramentary and it too was in Latin. And yes, the language of the mass, even in Italy, originally was in Greek.

My priest--a Latin Mass only priest--told me last Sunday that Latin for him is quite necessary because he knows what he is saying when he says "This is My Body . . . this is My Blood" in Latin. It's a matter of a stable vocabulary.

He also served in the missions in India and has said mass in other Asian countries. He told me that even little children overseas can sing and pray many of the responses in Latin. And these are non-Western people! He was of course referring to the unity of the Church around a common liturgical language.

Common liturgical language? Hmmmh . . . let's see know . . . where have see seen this before? Oh yes! Hebrew for the Jews and ancient or classical Arabic for the Moslems.

I also don't think liturgy alone is enough of an explanation for the massive ignorance in Catholic pews. The loss of belief in the Real Presence is not just secularism/atheism. It is poor catechesis. In my former parish, for example, where parents were "formed" as part of getting their children ready for First Holy Communion-today they call it "First Eucharist"--the meal catechesis approach was used that almost totally ignored the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross.

The term, host, comes from the Latin, hostium, which means victim. You don't need a victim for a meal, even a holy meal, but the parents (and their children) were only getting half the story! Yes, the altar of sacrifice is also the table of the Lord.

It's a question of telling the whole story. It is not enough when some liberal catechist refers to the chalice with the Precious Blood merely as the "cup of blessing."

. . . that was precisely one of the reasons why St Gregory instituted a liturgy in a dead language. .

I really don't think Latin was "dead" in 500 AD. Besides, the Gelasian sacramentary preceded the Gregorian sacramentary and it too was in Latin. And yes, the language of the mass, even in Italy, originally was in Greek.

My priest--a Latin Mass only priest--told me last Sunday that Latin for him is quite necessary because he knows what he is saying when he says "This is My Body . . . this is My Blood" in Latin. It's a matter of a stable vocabulary.

He also served in the missions in India and has said mass in other Asian countries. He told me that even little children overseas can sing and pray many of the responses in Latin. And these are non-Western people! He was of course referring to the unity of the Church around a common liturgical language.

Common liturgical language? Hmmmh . . . let's see know . . . where have see seen this before? Oh yes! Hebrew for the Jews and ancient or classical Arabic for the Moslems.

I also don't think liturgy alone is enough of an explanation for the massive ignorance in Catholic pews. The loss of belief in the Real Presence is not just secularism/atheism. It is poor catechesis. In my former parish, for example, where parents were "formed" as part of getting their children ready for First Holy Communion-today they call it "First Eucharist"--the meal catechesis approach was used that almost totally ignored the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross.

The term, host, comes from the Latin, hostium, which means victim. You don't need a victim for a meal, even a holy meal, but the parents (and their children) were only getting half the story! Yes, the altar of sacrifice is also the table of the Lord.

It's a question of telling the whole story. It is not enough when some liberal catechist refers to the chalice with the Precious Blood merely as the "cup of blessing."

Adeo,I should have been more specific on my part. Classical Latin (the same style latin used in the TLM) was "dead in the late 500's when the Mass of Gregeory the Great was instituted. The "Vulgar Latin" was still used by the common man, and as we both know, that was the forerunner of Italian, which was in it's infancy.

And you were right about Greek being the language of the liturgy prior to the MoGtG, but I think all that is an irrellevant point. we agree that St Gregory wanted the Mass in a language that was unchanging for all time. No matter what culture it was in... no matter what period in human history.... what was said would be meant, and what was meant would be said.

The Melkite and Chaldean Catholics have succedded in doing that with liturgy in ancient Aramaic, the Ukrainian Catholics the same with ancient Slavonic, the Coptic Catholics of Ethiopia with ancient Ge'ez, and we Catholics of the Latin Rite with classical "Church" Latin.

By the way, I reallly like your statement "You don't need a victim for a mean". I never thought about that! Excellent comment.

Pablo,As we both know, Charity with a capital C, is a Christian virtue. "Caritas" --- "Love". It IS suppose to be specific. St Paul's letter to the Corinthians (Chap 13, I think) spells it out well.

The pasting we Trads took at the hands of the Modernists was exactly an example of Charity, or lack thereof. We Trads strive to love God. Modernists strive to love Man. And with that self-worship, comes the Satan-inspired hatred of God.

Am I saying that there are clerics, especially clerics in placed of positions of power, within The Church, that worship the Cult of Man, and this has mutated to a hatred of God? Exactly.

If me saying that makes me "uncharitable", so be it.

But to answer your question, I did notice the same thing in the 70's (I am 49, and don't really remember the TLM. The military was using the 'hybrid Mass' as far back as 67-68 (?) and that's my earliest memory. But yes... there was something definatly lurking in the shadows back then.

Smoke of Satan? Hey, and let's not forget when Our Lady of Akita made her warnings known. Coincidence? I think not!!

The problem with the ordinary form, as it stands, is that every gesture that would emphasise the real presence has been removed: the triple genuflections, the holding of the priests fore-finger and thumb after he touched the consecrated host, the meticulous ablutions, etc. Even the prayers in the ordinary of the new rite are so vague that they can be interpreted just about anyway you want.

With the old mass there is no vagueness or taking any chances. The liberals complain about the supposed "rubricism" of the old mass and say there was no devotion in anything the priest did (as if devotion to the Eucharist has been at an all time high in the last forty years). The fact of the matter is, that the rubrics and gestures associated with the old rite emphasise the true presence of Our Lord and the need for the utmost dignity.

Things are moving along quickly. The SSPX is being remade that it may assimilate much more easily into Vatican II New Church. The mark upon it left by Archbishop Lefebvre is being changed to that of Bishop Fellay.